Our poor Pope has been misinterpreted again:
“More than a year ago, during an interview, Pope Francis answered two different questions at two different times that, in the aforementioned documentary, were edited and published as a single answer without the proper contextualization, which has led to confusion,” the letter says.
Regarding the pope’s comments in the film that “what we need is a civil union law,” the Vatican’s clarification says that the Pope was speaking about his opposition to a same-sex marriage law in Argentina ten years ago when the Pope was Archbishop of Buenos Aires.
In that context, the Vatican’s letter claims, the Pope “had spoken about the rights of these people to have certain legal protection,” but not about same-sex marriage.
Go here to read the rest. Those brilliant, twisted souls at The Lutheran Satire called it long ago:
It is unconscionable that he continues to be sucked into these conversations and off-the-cuff statements. His inability to adjust to his role, after so long IN the role, is astounding and disturbing.
Remember when Benedict flubbed that speech in Turkey (I think that’s the place)? There was no follow-up mistake. That’s how it’s supposed to be.
Seriously, His Holiness has staff. They can read over everything before it goes out and vet his interviews. That he doesn’t make use of that is all on him.
Dave, his “yes” doesn’t mean “yes” and his “no” doesn’t mean “no,” making him our first post-modern supreme pontiff.
Exactly, David.
IIRC, the B16 thing wasn’t even a mistake, it was a politically injudicious bit of fact because he let his love of history get away from him, but it got people hurt to no gain so he didn’t do it again.
And I wish Ernst was wrong. :/
What baffles me the most is the number of people, otherwise apparently rational, who continue to buy into these half-baked explanations and incomplete corrections, seemingly learning nothing from the track record. Each episode repeats the same pattern, yet is treated as if it is the first such occurrence.
If Biden wins, I’m gonna change careers and go into stand up comedy. President Biden will provide all the material. Who would’ve thought someone could get rich plagiarizing Joe Biden?
Poetic justice at it’s finest!
The so-called “clarification” is still against what the Church teaches.
From 2003;
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
“Under no circumstances can they be approved”.
“Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
“If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favor of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.”
“When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.”
“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.”
The actual letter seems to be available here (in Spanish):
https://www.facebook.com/100000657038470/posts/3713375955360936/?d=n
The last bit of the letter argues that the pope definitely was talking about a type of civil union, but also argues that it would be something purely for clearing up legal matters. The only specific example given is giving assistance in health care (maybe in allowing “family vists?”) But it goes on to say that there are so many special types of such agreements and that he doesn’t even know how to distinguish the separate forms
So more vagueness in the end. That would allow the pope to be supporting something that is “marriage” in literally all but name. But it would also allow him to be supporting some very limited and technical economic agreements which might not allow many of the benefits of marriage (for example, maybe no preferential tax benefits, no preference for naturalization of “spouse”, no joint adoption possibilities, etc.). Maybe. Like most things with Pope Francis the clarification only adds more vagueness which can be interpreted by his supporters and detractors as convenient.
I think that the biggest problem with Pope Francis is not what he believes, but that even when he is “teaching” we still do not know what he believes.
“Legal matters”? Anyone can leave items to anyone else in their will or appoint anyone else as guardian, etc.
“Family visits”? They aren’t family. To call them so is wrong.
In many places a civil marriage or union was when someone married by the Justice of the Peace or another civic leader and not by a member of the clergy. Recognized Civil Unions are Civil Marriages. Pretending otherwise (wink, wink) is a waste of time and fools no one.
No one is asking for or implementing Civil Unions between siblings or a parent and an adult child, etc. It is ONLY for homosexuals, therefore a legal recognition for it is wrong.
I think most people are pretty clear on what “Pope Francis” thinks.
Don, I forgot to say thanks for once again posting a Lutheran Satire video. They never disappoint and that one is a especially on point. A bit of humor in these darkening days is sorely needed.
Thank you and agreed JFK.
Sincerely,
Don